Posted on 02/28/2008 11:36:25 PM PST by kaehurowing
BREAKING: JI Packer threatened with suspension
Michael Daley on Feb-28-2008
As evidence of the escalating crisis in the global Anglican Communion, today one of the of the world’s most esteemed Christian theologians, Dr. J.I. Packer, received a letter threatening suspension from ministry by the controversial Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham. Bishop Ingham accused Dr. Packer, hailed by Time Magazine as the “doctrinal Solomon” of Christian thinkers, “to have abandoned the exercise of ministry” after the church where he is a member voted to separate from the diocese and join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone under the oversight of Anglican Archbishop Gregory Venables. Dr. Packer, who was ordained in the Church of England, is the author of the Christian classic, “Knowing God,” and joined Billy Graham and Richard John Neuhaus as one of Time Magazine’s 25 most influential evangelicals in 2005.
Dr. Packer, who received his theological education at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, was ordained a deacon (1952) and priest (1953) in the Church of England. He was Assistant Curate of Harborne Heath in Birmingham 1952-54 and Lecturer at Tyndale Hall, Bristol 1955-61. He was Librarian of Latimer House, Oxford 1961-62 and Principal 1962-69. In 1970 he became Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol, and from 1971 until 1979 he was Associate Prinicipal of Trinity College, Bristol. In addition to his published works, he has served as general editor for the English Standard Version of the Bible. He currently serves as the Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia.
He will be 82 in July.
But you still have The Church.
Prayers up that the righteous shall be vindicated.
Ping
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
May God richly Bless this Godly man...
Seems this is SOP. Too bad they feel they have to pick on a man in his 80’s.
TEC INTREP
Bishop Ingham says that Packer has "abandoned the exercise of ministry” after the church where he is a member voted to separate from the diocese and join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone under the oversight of Anglican Archbishop Gregory Venables.
So let's look at that. Packer was ordained by the CoE. Packer belongs to a parish that has voted to disaffiliate from CoE.
As an ordained priest in the Church of England, Packer promised obedience to his bishop. The bishop has a right to expect obedience from his priests ... it's a fundamental tenet of Anglican practice. And he also has a right to expect that his priests will actually honor their vows as priests of the Church of England, and to remain as such.
So Packer has a choice: if he wants to retain his ordination within the CoE, he must distance himself from those who have removed themselves from CoE.
If he refuses to do that, and abandons the Church of England ... on what basis could he possibly expect to retain his ministry as a priest of the Church of England?
Like it or not, the Anglican church has a lot of rules governing the ordination and ministry of its priests.
It seems to me that this "controversy" stems from a bunch of folks wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Anglican rules evidently matter only when somebody else is breaking them.
It's really kind of sad, in a way. Here is a fellow who purports to be taking a brave stand for the faith, but he's so wedded to his worldly position (ordination in the Church of England) that he can't give it up.
If Packer is really serious, then he should "Leave the dead to bury their own dead," and cease the pointless whining about Bp. Ingham doing what any bishop is required to do.
I think Packer is a priest of the CofE, not the Anglican Church in Canada. Not that the CofE may not end up at that point, but right now it is Bishop Ingham who is in rebellion against the Anglican Communion, not Packer, by pushing homosexuality and requiring his priests to acknowlege homosexual marriage, aka “blessings,” despite condemnation by the worldwide Anglican communion.
One would like to hope this would finally galvanize Archbishop Rowan to break ties with Ingham and the other heretics in the Epsicopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada and to anathematize them, but you know it will never happen.
Again -- we can grant that; but Ingham is properly exercising his duties as a bishop in this case. Packer can leave, but if he does so, he can't claim to retain his ordination.
Sodom expels Lot.
” It seems to me that this “controversy” stems from a bunch of folks wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Anglican rules evidently matter only when somebody else is breaking them.”
Anglican church rules do not require you to follow your Bishop to the pit of Hell.
True enough. But the fact remains that the bishop is only doing his job here. The "controversy" is that some folks seem to think that Packer should retain his ministry even as he abandons the diocese by which his ministry was granted.
Packer is free to leave. He's not free to act as if he hasn't left.
“The “controversy” is that some folks seem to think that Packer should retain his ministry even as he abandons the diocese by which his ministry was granted.”
Packer has not moved doctrinally. His diocese has abandoned the faith.
A heretical Bishop has no valid “job” to do in the Church.
So you’re basically saying that church rules only apply if you say they do. And you differ from the liberals in that regard ... how?
Hypothetical:
If Gene Robinson was your bishop, would you feel required to follow his rule?
(Let’s say he required your children to attend pro homosexual classes.)
It depends. Am I claiming to be a priest in his diocese?
“So you’re basically saying that church rules only apply if you say they do. And you differ from the liberals in that regard ... how?”
There is a rule higher than the Church.
We are not required to follow the leadership of heretics.
“It depends. Am I claiming to be a priest in his diocese?”
For the sake of the argument, yes.
Then don't. But if you don't follow the leadership of a heretic, you cannot at the same time claim to practice ministry under his diocesan authority.
If Packer is going to make a break, he needs to actually make a break, and not complain when others help him to do it.
If I claim to be a priest in his diocese, then I am required to follow his rules. Them’s the rules of the game.
“Then don’t. But if you don’t follow the leadership of a heretic, you cannot at the same time claim to practice ministry under his diocesan authority.”
Minor correction, I need to change “heretics” to “apostates”.
My contention is that the apostates have taken themselves out of the game. Their authority is no longer valid or binding.
They may, for the time being, have the force to enact their invalid authority. But their authority is not an authority that any Christian tradition in any age would recognize.
Is there a point at which you are not?
“If I claim to be a priest in his diocese, then I am required to follow his rules. Them’s the rules of the game.”
Peter, Jams and John rejected the “duly constituted” authority of the Sanhedrin when it required of them that which was opposed to God’s will.
Religious authority, when it becomes systemically corrupt, ceases to be a legitimate agent of God.
I really don’t believe you would put your children in a pro homosexual class!
If I may ask .... what denomination are you?
I wouldn't ... but at the same time, I would not try to have my cake and eat it, too. It would be ridiculous to claim priestly authority under the aegis of a diocese whose authority I reject.
“If I may ask .... what denomination are you?”
Anglo-Baptist.
:)
Baptized Anglican in a Baptist church (because they seem the most stalwart in the preservation and promotion of the Gospel).
“It would be ridiculous to claim priestly authority under the aegis of a diocese whose authority I reject.”
Apostates have crept in and subverted the diocese.
What they are promoting is against Scripture and tradition.
We apparently have very different views of authority.
The various versions of Anglicanism are very structured and carefully defined. In terms of the hierarchical organization, you can't just pick and choose which rules you want to follow. If you're going to claim priestly authority within an Anglican diocese, you're bound to follow the rules set by the diocesan bishop. You are free to leave -- but you cannot take your old titles with you, because they are conferred to you by the bishop.
To do so, is to be guilty of the same thing about which we are (rightly) upset with the liberals for doing.
Perhaps. I recognize that there is authority (conferred by the church); and Authority (conferred by God).
At issue in this case is small-a "authority." Packer apparently wants to keep his old titles, even as he rejects the hierarchy by which they were conferred.
Packer is a priest in good standing in the Church of England. Ingham can’t take that away if he wanted to. All he can do is ban Packer from officiating in his diocese. Since Packer is retired in any event, this attack is primarily symbolic.
True, and thanks for the clarification.
And yet my point remains. The bishop is acting within his responsibilities. It's pointless to moan about Packer being required to play by the rules.
If I understand correctly, Packer is an ordained priest in the Church of England. He is a member of a parish in Vancouver, B.C. but he is not the parish priest. So “Bishop” Ingham has no more authority over him than he would any other parishioner; Packer is not employed by the Diocese of New Westminster and only if he were to fill in for a priest who took a Sunday off, let’s say, could Ingham take any action against him, and all he could do would be to inhibit him from preaching in the diocese.
Ingham needs a good thrashing, IMHO. These apostate bishops make me ill.
That's why articles like this make me chuckle. There really is nothing to see here--that is, unless one enjoys the spectacle of a revisionist bishop puffing up his chest to no actual effect. :)
Not true, and as a member of the liberal Episcopal church, you know better. The congregation that Packer is part of wasn't CoE, it was Anglican Church of Canada before it departed for a more Christian part of the Anglican communion.
About 20 years ago my mother died and my dad invited us to come home and take anything in their house they we might want. Some of my brother and sisters took various furniture items. Since I was the last to arrive there was not much left for me. I took two items: (1) my mothers Bible and (2) the book Knowing God by J I Packer. It’s a super book especially condsidering all the watered down christianity that is taught today.
Actually, the Province of the Southern Cone, and Archbishop Venables are fulling in Communion with the CofE and the worldwide Anglican Communion....More-so, actually than the Anglican church of Canada—in that this church has an impaired communion with the worldwide Anglican Church (what you may mean by the CofE) unlike Venables’ province.
So in no way has Dr. Packer or his congregation abandoned the Anglican Communion or the CofE. That would be more accurately the Canadian (and USA’s) churches.
You're right. Wrong church. But the point remains.
Not if the diocese refuses to follow the rules first. One cannot enforce a covenant they have already breached.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.